464:
of group members having quit smoking at post-test was found much higher in a group having received a quit-smoking training program than in the control group. However, in the experimental group only 60% have completed the program. If this attrition is systematically related to any feature of the study, the administration of the independent variable, the instrumentation, or if dropping out leads to relevant bias between groups, a whole class of alternative explanations is possible that account for the observed differences.
124:
25:
449:
toward the mean and not the course's effectiveness. If the children had been tested again before the course started, they would likely have obtained better scores anyway. Likewise, extreme outliers on individual scores are more likely to be captured in one instance of testing but will likely evolve into a more normal distribution with repeated testing.
66:
424:
Repeatedly measuring the participants may lead to bias. Participants may remember the correct answers or may be conditioned to know that they are being tested. Repeatedly taking (the same or similar) intelligence tests usually leads to score gains, but instead of concluding that the underlying skills
490:
Behavior in the control groups may alter as a result of the study. For example, control group members may work extra hard to see that the expected superiority of the experimental group is not demonstrated. Again, this does not mean that the independent variable produced no effect or that there is no
463:
This error occurs if inferences are made on the basis of only those participants that have participated from the start to the end. However, participants may have dropped out of the study before completion, and maybe even due to the study or programme or experiment itself. For example, the percentage
301:
Rather, a number of variables or circumstances uncontrolled for (or uncontrollable) may lead to additional or alternative explanations (a) for the effects found and/or (b) for the magnitude of the effects found. Internal validity, therefore, is more a matter of degree than of either-or, and that is
448:
This type of error occurs when subjects are selected on the basis of extreme scores (one far away from the mean) during a test. For example, when children with the worst reading scores are selected to participate in a reading course, improvements at the end of the course might be due to regression
406:
Events outside of the study/experiment or between repeated measures of the dependent variable may affect participants' responses to experimental procedures. Often, these are large-scale events (natural disaster, political change, etc.) that affect participants' attitudes and behaviors such that it
393:
During the selection step of the research study, if an unequal number of test subjects have similar subject-related variables there is a threat to the internal validity. For example, a researcher created two test groups, the experimental and the control groups. The subjects in both groups are not
481:
If treatment effects spread from treatment groups to control groups, a lack of differences between experimental and control groups may be observed. This does not mean, however, that the independent variable has no effect or that there is no relationship between dependent and independent variable.
433:
The instrument used during the testing process can change the experiment. This also refers to observers being more concentrated or primed, or having unconsciously changed the criteria they use to make judgments. This can also be an issue with self-report measures given at different times. In this
305:
In order to allow for inferences with a high degree of internal validity, precautions may be taken during the design of the study. As a rule of thumb, conclusions based on direct manipulation of the independent variable allow for greater internal validity than conclusions based on an association
314:
of the findings. For example, studying the behavior of animals in a zoo may make it easier to draw valid causal inferences within that context, but these inferences may not generalize to the behavior of animals in the wild. In general, a typical experiment in a laboratory, studying a particular
415:
Subjects change during the course of the experiment or even between measurements. For example, young children might mature and their ability to concentrate may change as they grow up. Both permanent changes, such as physical growth and temporary ones like fatigue, provide "natural" alternative
389:
Selection bias refers to the problem that, at pre-test, differences between groups exist that may interact with the independent variable and thus be 'responsible' for the observed outcome. Researchers and participants bring to the experiment a myriad of characteristics, some learned and others
309:
When considering only
Internal Validity, highly controlled true experimental designs (i.e. with random selection, random assignment to either the control or experimental groups, reliable instruments, reliable manipulation processes, and safeguards against confounding factors) may be the "gold
512:
Experiments that have high internal validity can produce phenomena and results that have no relevance in real life, resulting in the mutual-internal-validity problem. It arises when researchers use experimental results to develop theories and then use those theories to design theory-testing
472:
This occurs when the subject-related variables, color of hair, skin color, etc., and the time-related variables, age, physical size, etc., interact. If a discrepancy between the two groups occurs between the testing, the discrepancy may be due to the age differences in the age categories.
267:
for observed changes or differences. When the researcher may confidently attribute the observed changes or differences in the dependent variable to the independent variable (that is, when the researcher observes an association between these variables and can rule out other explanations or
499:
Experimenter bias occurs when the individuals who are conducting an experiment inadvertently affect the outcome by non-consciously behaving in different ways to members of control and experimental groups. It is possible to eliminate the possibility of experimenter bias through the use of
263:). For example, a researcher might manipulate the dosage of a particular drug between different groups of people to see what effect it has on health. In this example, the researcher wants to make a causal inference, namely, that different doses of the drug may be
416:
explanations; thus, they may change the way a subject would react to the independent variable. So upon completion of the study, the researcher may not be able to determine if the cause of the discrepancy is due to time or the independent variable.
397:
Self-selection also has a negative effect on the interpretive power of the dependent variable. This occurs often in online surveys where individuals of specific demographics opt into the test at higher rates than other demographics.
491:
relationship between dependent and independent variable. Vice versa, changes in the dependent variable may only be affected due to a demoralized control group, working less hard or motivated, not due to the independent variable.
434:
case, the impact may be mitigated through the use of retrospective pretesting. If any instrumentation changes occur, the internal validity of the main conclusion is affected, as alternative explanations are readily available.
581:
Brewer, M. (2000). Research Design and Issues of
Validity. In Reis, H. and Judd, C. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
390:
inherent. For example, sex, weight, hair, eye, and skin color, personality, mental capabilities, and physical abilities, but also attitudes like motivation or willingness to participate.
513:
experiments. This mutual feedback between experiments and theories can lead to theories that explain only phenomena and results in artificial laboratory settings but not in real life.
611:
Liebert, R. M. & Liebert, L. L. (1995). Science and behavior: An introduction to methods of psychological research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
205:, within the context of a particular study. It is one of the most important properties of scientific studies and is an important concept in reasoning about
593:
Shadish, W., Cook, T., and
Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generilized Causal Inference Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
377:: Changes in the dependent variable may rather be attributed to variations in a third variable which is related to the manipulated variable. Where
209:
more generally. Internal validity is determined by how well a study can rule out alternative explanations for its findings (usually, sources of
76:
407:
becomes impossible to determine whether any change on the dependent measures is due to the independent variable, or the historical event.
145:
87:
365:
When it is not known which variable changed first, it can be difficult to determine which variable is the cause and which is the effect.
310:
standard" of scientific research. However, the very methods used to increase internal validity may also limit the generalizability or
38:
234:
185:
167:
105:
52:
552:
294:
781:
302:
exactly why research designs other than true experiments may also yield results with a high degree of internal validity.
557:
217:, the extent to which results can justify conclusions about other contexts (that is, the extent to which results can be
623:
138:
132:
443:
776:
149:
394:
alike with regard to the independent variable but similar in one or more of the subject-related variables.
44:
602:
Levine, G. and
Parkinson, S. (1994). Experimental Methods in Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
562:
378:
80:
that states a
Knowledge (XXG) editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.
504:
study designs, in which the experimenter is not aware of the condition to which a participant belongs.
522:
374:
256:
537:
221:). Both internal and external validity can be described using qualitative or quantitative forms of
734:
679:
527:
260:
251:
there are no plausible alternative explanations for the observed covariation (nonspuriousness).
726:
718:
671:
542:
458:
311:
287:
214:
255:
In scientific experimental settings, researchers often change the state of one variable (the
710:
663:
632:
532:
315:
process, may leave out many variables that normally strongly affect that process in nature.
238:
210:
652:"Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments"
761:
425:
have changed for good, this threat to
Internal Validity provides a good rival hypothesis.
222:
381:
cannot be ruled out, rival hypotheses to the original causal inference may be developed.
290:
of the instruments and statistical procedures used to measure and detect the effects, and
636:
218:
233:
Inferences are said to possess internal validity if a causal relationship between two
770:
755:
738:
683:
501:
276:
699:"Promises and Perils of Experimentation: The Mutual-Internal-Validity Problem"
667:
722:
714:
675:
621:
Wortman, P. M. (1983). "Evaluation research – A methodological perspective".
651:
547:
202:
730:
698:
16:
Extent to which a piece of evidence supports a claim about cause and effect
324:
206:
248:
the "cause" and the "effect" tend to occur together (covariation), and
201:
is the extent to which a piece of evidence supports a claim about
697:
Lin, Hause; Werner, Kaitlyn M.; Inzlicht, Michael (2021-02-16).
245:
the "cause" precedes the "effect" in time (temporal precedence),
323:
To recall eight of these threats to internal validity, use the
117:
59:
18:
272:), then the causal inference is said to be internally valid.
77:
personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay
279:
found in the dependent variable may not just depend on
373:
A major threat to the validity of causal inferences is
83:
420:
Repeated testing (also referred to as testing effects)
259:) to see what effect it has on a second variable (the
241:may be made when three criteria are satisfied:
486:Compensatory rivalry/resentful demoralization
8:
53:Learn how and when to remove these messages
589:
587:
186:Learn how and when to remove this message
168:Learn how and when to remove this message
106:Learn how and when to remove this message
293:the choice of statistical methods (see:
131:This article includes a list of general
574:
344:Statistical regression toward the mean,
283:variations in the independent variable,
703:Perspectives on Psychological Science
7:
637:10.1146/annurev.ps.34.020183.001255
429:Instrument change (instrumentality)
237:is properly demonstrated. A valid
137:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
34:This article has multiple issues.
508:Mutual-internal-validity problem
468:Selection-maturation interaction
453:Mortality/differential attrition
306:observed without manipulation.
122:
64:
23:
656:Journal of Economic Methodology
553:Statistical conclusion validity
295:Statistical conclusion validity
42:or discuss these issues on the
213:or 'bias'). It contrasts with
1:
650:Schram, Arthur (2005-06-01).
361:Ambiguous temporal precedence
558:Statistical model validation
275:In many cases, however, the
624:Annual Review of Psychology
798:
456:
444:Regression toward the mean
441:
438:Regression toward the mean
758:(Social research methods)
668:10.1080/13501780500086081
715:10.1177/1745691620974773
350:Experimental mortality,
152:more precise citations.
563:Validity in statistics
379:spurious relationships
356:Selection Interaction.
86:by rewriting it in an
782:Validity (statistics)
523:All models are wrong
331:, which stands for:
257:independent variable
538:Ecological validity
528:Construct validity
341:Instrument change,
261:dependent variable
88:encyclopedic style
75:is written like a
762:Internal validity
756:Internal validity
543:External validity
495:Experimenter bias
459:Survivorship bias
312:external validity
215:external validity
199:Internal validity
196:
195:
188:
178:
177:
170:
116:
115:
108:
57:
789:
777:Causal inference
743:
742:
694:
688:
687:
647:
641:
640:
618:
612:
609:
603:
600:
594:
591:
582:
579:
533:Content validity
325:mnemonic acronym
270:rival hypotheses
265:held responsible
239:causal inference
211:systematic error
203:cause and effect
191:
184:
173:
166:
162:
159:
153:
148:this article by
139:inline citations
126:
125:
118:
111:
104:
100:
97:
91:
68:
67:
60:
49:
27:
26:
19:
797:
796:
792:
791:
790:
788:
787:
786:
767:
766:
752:
747:
746:
696:
695:
691:
649:
648:
644:
620:
619:
615:
610:
606:
601:
597:
592:
585:
580:
576:
571:
519:
510:
497:
488:
479:
470:
461:
455:
446:
440:
431:
422:
413:
404:
387:
371:
363:
321:
319:Example threats
277:size of effects
231:
223:causal notation
192:
181:
180:
179:
174:
163:
157:
154:
144:Please help to
143:
127:
123:
112:
101:
95:
92:
84:help improve it
81:
69:
65:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
795:
793:
785:
784:
779:
769:
768:
765:
764:
759:
751:
750:External links
748:
745:
744:
709:(4): 854–863.
689:
662:(2): 225–237.
642:
613:
604:
595:
583:
573:
572:
570:
567:
566:
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
518:
515:
509:
506:
496:
493:
487:
484:
478:
475:
469:
466:
457:Main article:
454:
451:
442:Main article:
439:
436:
430:
427:
421:
418:
412:
409:
403:
400:
386:
385:Selection bias
383:
370:
367:
362:
359:
358:
357:
354:
353:Selection, and
351:
348:
345:
342:
339:
336:
320:
317:
299:
298:
291:
284:
253:
252:
249:
246:
230:
227:
194:
193:
176:
175:
130:
128:
121:
114:
113:
72:
70:
63:
58:
32:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
794:
783:
780:
778:
775:
774:
772:
763:
760:
757:
754:
753:
749:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
693:
690:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
646:
643:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
617:
614:
608:
605:
599:
596:
590:
588:
584:
578:
575:
568:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
520:
516:
514:
507:
505:
503:
494:
492:
485:
483:
476:
474:
467:
465:
460:
452:
450:
445:
437:
435:
428:
426:
419:
417:
410:
408:
401:
399:
395:
391:
384:
382:
380:
376:
368:
366:
360:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
333:
332:
330:
326:
318:
316:
313:
307:
303:
296:
292:
289:
285:
282:
281:
280:
278:
273:
271:
266:
262:
258:
250:
247:
244:
243:
242:
240:
236:
228:
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
187:
172:
169:
161:
158:December 2022
151:
147:
141:
140:
134:
129:
120:
119:
110:
107:
99:
96:December 2022
89:
85:
79:
78:
73:This article
71:
62:
61:
56:
54:
47:
46:
41:
40:
35:
30:
21:
20:
706:
702:
692:
659:
655:
645:
628:
622:
616:
607:
598:
577:
511:
502:double-blind
498:
489:
480:
471:
462:
447:
432:
423:
414:
405:
396:
392:
388:
372:
364:
328:
322:
308:
304:
300:
274:
269:
264:
254:
232:
198:
197:
182:
164:
155:
136:
102:
93:
74:
50:
43:
37:
36:Please help
33:
631:: 223–260.
375:confounding
369:Confounding
347:Maturation,
219:generalized
150:introducing
771:Categories
569:References
411:Maturation
133:references
39:improve it
739:231877717
723:1745-6916
684:145588503
676:1350-178X
548:Soundness
477:Diffusion
329:THIS MESS
235:variables
45:talk page
731:33593177
517:See also
338:History,
335:Testing,
207:evidence
402:History
229:Details
146:improve
82:Please
737:
729:
721:
682:
674:
135:, but
735:S2CID
680:S2CID
288:power
727:PMID
719:ISSN
672:ISSN
286:the
711:doi
664:doi
633:doi
773::
733:.
725:.
717:.
707:16
705:.
701:.
678:.
670:.
660:12
658:.
654:.
629:34
627:.
586:^
327:,
297:).
225:.
48:.
741:.
713::
686:.
666::
639:.
635::
189:)
183:(
171:)
165:(
160:)
156:(
142:.
109:)
103:(
98:)
94:(
90:.
55:)
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.